A Discussion About Tonal and Atonal Music

First of all I am a tonal composer and I don't have compose anything atonal yet.

I am in the process of a project that I have to describe some feelings with music. (...feelings...)

And here is the point how can I explain tragedy (not only ''sad'' music) real tragedy in music.

I think the saddest work in history of tonal music it can't be compare with a atonal music in tragedy.

So I have two questions:

Atonal Composers:

What is the main reason that you write atonal?

Tonal Composers: You think that tonal music can cover all the human feelings if you have to discribe them in music?

I've done both. Anything I can express better with atonal methods will often result in me writing 'atonal' (or what most should call 'Free-Tone') music. The difference being that most music involves 'tone', and to call music 'atonal' completely contradicts the nature of the content/syntax of 'atonal' music.

I write both actually. Atonal, usually when I'm in the mood for it. I don't write it that often largely due to my own personal feeling that it cannot express human emotion well. Its a very cold, dead sound - IN MY OPINION. Tonal music, on the other hand, is able to express those emotions that Atonal cannot.

I don't write it that often largely due to my own personal feeling that it cannot express human emotion well. Its a very cold, dead sound - IN MY OPINION. Tonal music, on the other hand, is able to express those emotions that Atonal cannot.

I happen to think Wozzeck has quite a bit of human emotion! :headwall: is emotional!!!!

I happen to think Wozzeck has quite a bit of human emotion! :headwall: is emotional!!!!

Did you even read the sentence that you quoted? I will post it again:

Tonal music, on the other hand, is able to express those emotions that Atonal cannot.

First, allow me to say:

Second, thinking there's only atonal (whatever that is) or tonal music is not correct or even reasonable; it's a rather common beginner mistake, so more studying is encouraged and less thread-making is advised. :>

Second, thinking there's only atonal (whatever that is) or tonal music is not correct or even reasonable; it's a rather common beginner mistake, so more studying is encouraged and less thread-making is advised. :>

I think that he meant just the basic meaning of the terms. Tonal (music with a tonal center) and Atonal (music without a tonal center).

Also, SSC - we all know that you dont care for the idea that music can express human emotions. With that in mind, why do you still come into these discussions that we have on the topic? Its almost like your trolling for lulz.

First, allow me to say:

LOL

I think that he meant just the basic meaning of the terms. Tonal (music with a tonal center) and Atonal (music without a tonal center).

Well I think he meant to talk about the straight-line performance of the new Mclaren sports car. If he isn't clear, "assuming" he's talking about something gets you nowhere. Besides, even if he WAS, it's still a nonsense question since "atonal" can mean billions of things.

Also, SSC - we all know that you dont care for the idea that music can express human emotions. With that in mind, why do you still come into these discussions that we have on the topic? Its almost like your trolling for lulz.

Wow I didn't know that was my position, thanks for telling me. And, I'm just pointing out that I can't even say what I think on the topic because the level of fail is astronomically high.

Wow I didn't know that was my position, thanks for telling me. And, I'm just pointing out that I can't even say what I think on the topic because the level of fail is astronomically high.

I fail to see what is failing about a person asking other composers of their own personal preferences. Is it fail to do that?

I fail to see what is failing about a person asking other composers of their own personal preferences. Is it fail to do that?

His question means nothing; it needs to be thoroughly rephrased before it gets at anything remotely answerable. Unless you define "atonality" explicitly, it means whatever you want it to mean.

Using "tonal" and "atonal" in this way is a beginner mistake, these terms mean absolutely nothing without further explanation. I mean I could as well interpret "tonal" to be Machaut and "atonal" to be Schoenberg, but "tonal" can also be Schubert or Stravinsky and "atonal" can also be Cage or Penderecki. See the problem?

I don't know what he's asking, and neither do you. You just assume you do, but your assumption could be entirely wrong and we really have no way of knowing since he is too vague.

His question means nothing; it needs to be thoroughly rephrased before it gets at anything remotely answerable. Unless you define "atonality" explicitly, it means whatever you want it to mean.

Using "tonal" and "atonal" in this way is a beginner mistake, these terms mean absolutely nothing without further explanation. I mean I could as well interpret "tonal" to be Machaut and "atonal" to be Schoenberg, but "tonal" can also be Schubert or Stravinsky and "atonal" can also be Cage or Penderecki. See the problem?

*sigh* No, I don't see the problem. Tonal and Atonal are two terms that are very easily understood by themselves.

Atonal: (English, German, Spanish) an keine Tonart gebunden (German), a property of music that avoids a key centre but is not constructed on serial principles, such works being written usually without a key signature

Tonal: music that is based on major and minor tonalities or modes rather than twelve-tone, or other atonal musical systems

Nothing really obscure or black and white in either of these definitions.

*sigh* No, I don't see the problem. Tonal and Atonal are two terms that are very easily understood by themselves.

Atonal: (English, German, Spanish) an keine Tonart gebunden (German), a property of music that avoids a key centre but is not constructed on serial principles, such works being written usually without a key signature

Tonal: music that is based on major and minor tonalities or modes rather than twelve-tone, or other atonal musical systems

Nothing really obscure or black and white in either of these definitions.

Very easily understood by themselves if you're an amateur or a beginner, sure. Your definitions fail spectacularly, here's a couple of superficial points:

1) For your atonal definition to make any sense, you have to now start explaining what "key center" is. If "key center" is a single note, or an chord, you can as well say a piece full of clusters but with a droning C chord is therefore "tonal," regardless of what happens around that. You couldn't possibly be talking about harmonic functions, otherwise you render Debussy, ravel, etc etc "atonal." So what is it? As for the gratuitous German, it simply says that it's not bound to a key. But then again, modal music isn't bound to keys either and you consider THAT "tonal."

2) For your tonal definition to make any sense, you need to explain how is it reasonable to group Machaut and Liszt in the same group concerning their composition technique. No, seriously, that's absolute nonsense.

PS: Here's what the New Grove Dictionary of Music had to say on "atonality:"

5. Conclusion.

Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and of the basic concept of serialism. It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant musical category. The tendency of historical criticism to construct systems of classification which attempt to index individual entries as neatly and unambiguously as possible has certainly been frustrated so far. The individuality of the contributions of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bart

But then again, modal music isn't bound to keys either and you consider THAT "tonal."

Please explain that. How is modal music not bound to keys or non tonal?

You cannot write a piece in C lydian without being in the key of C lydian or without having C as the tonal center. It wouldn't be C lydian anymore. Modal music is tonal per definitionem.

I haven't ever written atonal music before. It is something I would like to try sometime in the near future. While I don't much care for it thus far, it is still a valid form in my opinion.

To answer the second question, I think that tonal music does cover all of the emotions. That question will very likely have as many different answers for it as there are people replying however.

Please explain that. How is modal music not bound to keys or non tonal?

You cannot write a piece in C lydian without being in the key of C lydian or without having C as the tonal center. It wouldn't be C lydian anymore. Modal music is tonal per definitionem.

It's not bound to keys because it's bound to scales, like you pointed out, which are not based on the major/minor model (as keys are.) I never said modal music isn't tonal, though I do think it isn't. Not as an opposition to tonality, but as its own method of composition which is intrinsically different from major/minor tonality.

Very easily understood by themselves if you're an amateur or a beginner, sure.

No, its not only limited to an amateur or a beginner. I consider tonal to reference any music that presents the aural illusion of a tonal center. This definition of mine, agrees fully with every definition of tonality that I was taught from a very early age to post-college. I understand fully that most people view the term exclusively within the constraints of Western Common Practice tonality - which I refer to as Functional Tonality.

1) For your atonal definition to make any sense, you have to now start explaining what "key center" is. If "key center" is a single note, or an chord, you can as well say a piece full of clusters but with a droning C chord is therefore "tonal," regardless of what happens around that. You couldn't possibly be talking about harmonic functions, otherwise you render Debussy, ravel, etc etc "atonal." So what is it? As for the gratuitous German, it simply says that it's not bound to a key. But then again, modal music isn't bound to keys either and you consider THAT "tonal."

Modal music is tonal in very simplistic terms. However, its a very lose tonal system mainly based on linear characterizations as opposed to the vertical characterizations of later musics. And my definition was pulled from an online dictionary of music: Dolmetsch Online - Music Dictionary Mf - Mo.

2) For your tonal definition to make any sense, you need to explain how is it reasonable to group Machaut and Liszt in the same group concerning their composition technique. No, seriously, that's absolute nonsense.

So isn't this a question you need to put to most music theory professors in college - as well as - many composition teachers internationally? Here is a list of my teachers, I can put there contact information here if you would like:

Middle School:

Deanna Slater, Harshman Middle School, Indianapolis, IN

High School:

Kandi Brown, Arsenal Tech High School, Indianapolis, IN

Beth Aubrey-Meyer, Arsenal Tech High School, Indianapolis, IN

College:

Dr and Dr Domb, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN

(husband and wife, the wife was head of the music department - she did a very good performance of Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire).

Mark Shelley, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN

I can go on and on with various music professionals who have taught me quite the opposite of what your arguing here.

My opinion, is that your arguing this very argumentative and overly analytical view of music to support your own musical taste and style. In truth, its not that complicated a definition.

Very easily understood by themselves if you're an amateur or a beginner, sure. Your definitions fail spectacularly, here's a couple of superficial points:

1) For your atonal definition to make any sense, you have to now start explaining what "key center" is. If "key center" is a single note, or an chord, you can as well say a piece full of clusters but with a droning C chord is therefore "tonal," regardless of what happens around that. You couldn't possibly be talking about harmonic functions, otherwise you render Debussy, ravel, etc etc "atonal." So what is it? As for the gratuitous German, it simply says that it's not bound to a key. But then again, modal music isn't bound to keys either and you consider THAT "tonal."

2) For your tonal definition to make any sense, you need to explain how is it reasonable to group Machaut and Liszt in the same group concerning their composition technique. No, seriously, that's absolute nonsense.

PS: Here's what the New Grove Dictionary of Music had to say on "atonality:"

But it's not hard to find things similar to this in any reputable musicology books (in spite of how many people seem to hate on Grove, haha.)

Ok wonderful noone is answering my qestions and you tried to figure out what is tonal and atonal.To clear things clusters are just clusters and may be used in tonal song without losing the tonality.So when I said atonal I just mean the simple way that the piece haven't a tone center.

No, its not only limited to an amateur or a beginner. I consider tonal to reference any music that presents the aural illusion of a tonal center. This definition of mine, agrees fully with every definition of tonality that I was taught from a very early age to post-college. I understand fully that most people view the term exclusively within the constraints of Western Common Practice tonality - which I refer to as Functional Tonality.

and (from glass000)

So when I said atonal I just mean the simple way that the piece haven't a tone center.

Define "tonal center." It sounds great, but I want you guys to realize how it means absolutely nothing.

Likewise, I don't care if God himself popped into existence and taught you, what you're saying is nonsense and if you were taught this, well, I'm sorry.

As for my arguing about this, I do think it's quite important to point out that generalizations when it comes to composition systems only breed nonsense and misunderstanding.

I answered your question. I didnt feel the need to be hypercritical over the definition and assumptions. :)

Whlie I agree 100% with SSC, it's a matter of communication really, and I wouldn't stand too much on semmatics myself to keep discussing this issue. But I do agree that SSC is 100% right here, despite his harsh postings as always! ;)

Whlie I agree 100% with SSC, it's a matter of communication really, and I wouldn't stand too much on semmatics myself to keep discussing this issue. But I do agree that SSC is 100% right here, despite his harsh postings as always! ;)

I'm only harsh because I care. :>

As for my arguing about this, I do think it's quite important to point out that generalizations when it comes to composition systems only breed nonsense and misunderstanding.

And you don't think that your making a generalization here at all? Your coming from one end of a many sided debate. I'm really not trying to come from any side but instead trying to offer a much more inclusive definition to what is meant by the terms Tonal and Atonal.

Tonal: music that is rooted in a tonal center.

TONAL CENTER: the tonic

Atonal: music that is not rooted in a tonal center.

Yes, SSC... I understand that music that uses the excretion of feces as the sole sound throughout the extent of the composition does not fit under either of these definitions.

I know love... I know! :D

Tonal: music that is rooted in a tonal center.

TONAL CENTER: the tonic

Atonal: music that is not rooted in a tonal center.

Yes, SSC... I understand that music that uses the excretion of feces as the sole sound throughout the extent of the composition does not fit under either of these definitions.

Ooh, stingy.

But fail all the same. So now I want to see you struggle to tell me what "the tonic" is in dozens of Debussy pieces... otherwise, they don't have a "tonal center," right? Therefore they're ... atonal, right?

Another wonderful problem with "tonic" as well is that, woopee, terminology made up in the 1730s didn't account for music written centuries before that either. So, where IS the tonic in the music of the ars antiqua again?

Unless you are hilariously implying that a mode = tonic. You certainly wouldn't be that silly, would you?